|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 7, 2018, 09:51 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,952
|
New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York
Headed to the Supreme Court.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...18%20FINAL.PDF http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...york-new-york/ The complaint has to do with the City of New York’s law that prevents gun owners from transporting licensed, locked and unloaded firearms outside the city. Think this will be the case we have been waiting for the SC to hear? |
December 7, 2018, 11:12 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,606
|
It's certainly a case the Supreme Court ought to hear.
It's nothing more than Jim Crow laws for the 21st century.
__________________
Time Travelers' Wisdom: Never Do Yesterday What Should Be Done Tomorrow. If At Last You Do Succeed, Never Try Again. |
December 7, 2018, 03:26 PM | #3 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
Where dies the link say it's headed for the Supreme Court? The petitioners have submitted it, yes, but certioari has not been granted. It can still be turned down.
|
December 7, 2018, 08:26 PM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 10, 2006
Location: Weekend cowboy
Posts: 542
|
Quote:
Declare a bogeyman. Whether it be heretics, or criminals or juvie gangs. And then raise such a scare that the public will believe anything that will "help" them. And that is how rights are taken away. As someone from New York, I hope these cases go through and win. Even minor victories are still victories and they will pave the road for more actions in the future. The Sullivan Act was passed with the intent of keeping street gangs and organized crime syndicates from getting guns, but that was all horse manure. It specifically targeted low income New Yorkers possibly from immigrant backgrounds. Mainly Italians. The New York political machine and vice industries of the early 1900's had long been dominated by the Irish Mob, who had used force to overturn Anglo-German control of the rackets in the middle of the 19th century. When a large influx of Italians and Chinese arrived in the port of New York in the 1900's, bringing with them their own powerful underworlds, these old generation guys were scared to death. Tammany Hall was one of the backers of the bill, as they were afraid that a new generation of armed social interest groups in the city would create another "Gangs of New York" scene and usurp their powerbase, as how the Tammany mobsters originally usurped Captain Isiah Rynders back in the 1840s. It is an archaic, useless and highly unconstitutional piece of legislation that should have been removed when the Heller case in DC had passed. |
|
December 7, 2018, 09:09 PM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,952
|
Quote:
|
|
December 8, 2018, 06:48 AM | #6 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
To clarify: The docket at this juncture shows that a petition for writ of cert has been filed and distributed for conference, but it has neither been granted nor denied.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
December 8, 2018, 07:09 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 16, 2010
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 112
|
Another reason to leave NY. I did, moved to the free state of Tennessee.
|
December 8, 2018, 08:15 AM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 21, 2005
Location: Sarasota (sort of) Florida
Posts: 1,296
|
I doubt if SCOTUS will hear it.
Where's the constitutional issue? AFS
__________________
'Qui tacet consentit': To remain silent is to consent. |
December 8, 2018, 11:07 AM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,606
|
Conflict with Second Amendment in general and a specific conflict with the "safe passage" section of the Firearms Protection Act, for starters.
__________________
Time Travelers' Wisdom: Never Do Yesterday What Should Be Done Tomorrow. If At Last You Do Succeed, Never Try Again. |
January 22, 2019, 10:24 AM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
The Supreme Court granted certiorari this morning in this case. The order granted it without modifying the issue presented. The order can be found here on page 13.
The issue, as stated by Petitioners is: Quote:
This is finally a chance for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the scope of the Second Amendment outside the home and, possibly, the standard of review and its application. |
|
January 22, 2019, 11:04 AM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 25, 2006
Location: The Keystone State
Posts: 1,970
|
NYC NYS
Perhaps the ACLU will take up this issue....oh, I forgot, they only defend THEIR issues.
Usually, NYC does not allow guns into their city...more here then meets the eye.
__________________
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading". --Thomas Jefferson |
January 22, 2019, 11:35 AM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 776
|
My concern is that that an opinion, even in our favor, would legitimize the draconian NYC licensing process. Is that a legitimate concern, or just my paranoia?
|
January 22, 2019, 11:43 AM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,606
|
Depends on the opinion. Best to wait for the ruling and comment on it rather than speculating in a vacuum.
__________________
Time Travelers' Wisdom: Never Do Yesterday What Should Be Done Tomorrow. If At Last You Do Succeed, Never Try Again. |
January 22, 2019, 04:01 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
Since the issue is not the validity of licensing, it would be very unlikely that a favorable ruling would address licensing directly. That doesn't mean a lower court could not seize upon some imprecise language or hypothetical and construe it as legitimizing licensing, no matter how strict. An unfavorable ruling would likely have significant adverse impact on gun rights in a variety of ways, IMO.
But, as natman said, it's maybe best to hold off on the speculation. |
January 22, 2019, 04:40 PM | #15 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
I find it fairly telling that NYC fights so hard to keep anyone but law enforcement from owning a gun, then prohibits those that succeed in clearing the licensing hurdles from taking their firearms out of the city.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
January 22, 2019, 05:03 PM | #16 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,820
|
Quote:
The court will be looking at a very specific set of questions, and I fully expect a very specific ruling on them. After which, the anti-gun world will go on doing what ever the hell they feel like, and can get away with, same as before... And, the High Court will NOT stop this, until/unless another case is brought to them, specific to it, and they both hear it, and rule in what we would consider our favor. Simply put, the people who believe gun control, up to and including prohibition, is right, just, and a proper role of government will keep on doing what they do, until a court they recognize having jurisdiction tells them specifically, personally, individually, in small words, to stop doing it. and even then, they might not... This is the established historical pattern. If you expect a "sea change" in the state of gun control from this case, I think you are ...unrealistically hopeful.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
January 22, 2019, 05:35 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 18, 2009
Location: Central Colorado
Posts: 1,001
|
__________________
Those who hammer their swords into plow shares will plow for those who didn't... |
January 22, 2019, 07:01 PM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
Quote:
Hopefully, we get a solid win on this. If we don't, it could be REALLY bad news. |
|
January 23, 2019, 11:04 AM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 3,881
|
one question, why is our own government so bent on gun control and disarming the law abiding citizen ?
|
January 23, 2019, 11:08 AM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Let's focus on this case and not go off on general philosophical discussions.
Here's a piece on the issue from a pessimistic antigun view: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...ity-ny/581017/ Guns on the street! I guess they missed the 45 or so shall issue states.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
January 23, 2019, 11:46 AM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 22, 2014
Location: Floyd, VA
Posts: 241
|
Quote:
__________________
In NJ, the bad guys are armed and the households are alarmed. In VA, the households are armed and the bad guys are alarmed. |
|
January 24, 2019, 06:08 AM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
Quote:
The ACLU has opposed using the secret "no fly" list as a "no buy" list for guns. https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-let...t-4814-hr-2578 They opposed taking away gun rights based on Social Security Disability status. https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-vot...aces-eo-senate And here's the ACLU amicus brief supporting the NRA against Cuomo. https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/...u-amicus-brief |
|
January 24, 2019, 10:08 AM | #23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,606
|
Quote:
__________________
Time Travelers' Wisdom: Never Do Yesterday What Should Be Done Tomorrow. If At Last You Do Succeed, Never Try Again. |
|
January 24, 2019, 12:29 PM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 29, 2011
Posts: 1,768
|
Graet news and just a few months after Brett Kavanaugh become Justice at SCOTUS.
__________________
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” ― Benjamin Franklin |
January 24, 2019, 02:58 PM | #25 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Let's avoid a general ACLU discussion and stick to the case at hand, please.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
|